Shropshire v. Stancil

Filing 27

ORDER denying 24 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 3/22/2013. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(eef)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:12-cv-175-RJC
KEITH L. SHROPSHIRE,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
RENOICE E. STANCIL,
)
Administrator of Bertie Correctional
)
Institution,
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court of Petitioner’s Motion for a Certificate of
Appealability. (Doc. No. 24).
On February 13, 2013, the Court entered an Order granting Respondent’s Motion for
Summary Judgment as to the claims raised by Petitioner in his habeas petition filed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 22). In the present motion, Petitioner requests a certificate of
appealability on the claims he raised, and which were rejected in the Court’s Order of dismissal.
Moreover, the Court specifically declined to issue a certificate of appealability in its Order of
dismissal after finding that Petitioner had failed to meet the requirements Rule 11(a) of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Proceedings. See also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). See (Doc. No. 22 at 14).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for a Certificate of
Appealability is DENIED. (Doc. No. 24).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability as Petitioner has not

1

made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003) (in order to satisfy § 2253(c), a petitioner must
demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims debatable or wrong); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 474, 484 (2000) (holding that when
relief is denied on procedural grounds, a petitioner must establish both that the correctness of the
dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatably valid claim of
the denial of a constitutional right).
Signed: March 22, 2013

2